If you’ve been Googling “Snow Teeth Whitening lawsuit” and hitting walls of confusing, half-baked articles — you’re not alone. Most pages out there either skim the surface or, worse, tell you there’s an active settlement you can join right now. Spoiler: there isn’t. That’s misinformation.
This guide gives you the full picture — two separate federal lawsuits, what was actually alleged, how each case ended, what happened with the celebrity defendants (yes, Rob Gronkowski and Floyd Mayweather were involved), and what real customers should know right now in 2026.
Let’s get into it.
Table of Contents
What Is Snow Teeth Whitening?
Before the lawsuits, Snow was everywhere. Founded by Joshua Elizetxe, Snow Teeth Whitening was an at-home teeth whitening brand that sold LED mouthpiece kits for between $149 and $199. The concept was simple: apply their whitening serum to your teeth, pop in the LED-lit mouthpiece, wait 10–30 minutes, and walk away with a brighter smile.
The product blew up fast — Snow claimed over 500,000 customers and aggressively marketed through social media, celebrity endorsements, and TV appearances. But somewhere between the hype and the headlines, things got complicated.
The Snow Teeth Whitening Lawsuit: Two Cases, Not One
Here’s the thing most articles miss: there were two separate class action lawsuits, not just one. Confusing them — or covering only one — is exactly why so much bad information is floating around online.
Case #1: Kraus v. Snow Teeth Whitening Lawsuit (2020) — The COVID Claim Lawsuit
Filed: December 14, 2020
Court: Eastern District of New York
Lead Plaintiff: Burton Kraus
Other Defendants: Joshua Elizetxe, Foresold LLC, Snow Cosmetics LLC, Rob Gronkowski, Floyd Mayweather
What Were the Allegations?
Burton Kraus filed a $5 million class action lawsuit, and the list of complaints was long. Here’s what he and his lawyers said Snow was doing wrong:
1. False COVID-19 Protection Claims This was the headline allegation. Snow’s advertising allegedly referenced the pandemic and implied their blue LED light offered protection from “germs and bacteria.” Another ad supposedly positioned a “red light option” as having some superior germ-killing quality. No scientific studies backed either of these claims.
2. Fake FDA Approval The lawsuit claimed that Snow’s packaging featured the FDA logo, implying government approval. The catch? Cosmetic products, including teeth whitening kits, are not subject to FDA approval. Putting that logo on packaging was allegedly designed to deceive consumers into thinking the product had a level of official endorsement it simply didn’t have.
3. Misleading “Proprietary” Serum Claims Snow marketed its whitening serum as proprietary and exclusive. According to the complaint, the formula was a standard combination of hydrogen and carbamide peroxide — the same basic ingredients used in countless cheaper whitening products. Nothing unique about it.
4. The “No Sensitivity” Contradiction Snow’s advertising claimed their products didn’t cause tooth sensitivity. Yet the company simultaneously sold an add-on product called “Add On For Sensitive Teeth” and a “Desensitizing Serum.” The lawsuit called this a direct contradiction — you can’t simultaneously claim your product causes no sensitivity and sell a product to treat sensitivity from using it.
5. The LED Light Was Basically Worthless Independent laboratory testing allegedly found that Snow’s LED mouthpiece provided no material added benefit in terms of the speed or effectiveness of whitening. The complaint went further, claiming the lights were essentially cheap components — “similar to models sold online for less than five dollars.”
6. Joshua Elizetxe’s Veneers One of the stranger, more personal allegations in the lawsuit: the complaint said Elizetxe himself has veneers — not naturally whitened teeth — and hid this fact while promoting his own product as the reason for his white smile. Appearing on the Home Shopping Network in November 2019, he allegedly told viewers that Snow’s serum contains “photocatalyst” — an ingredient that speeds up whitening when exposed to light. The lawsuit disputed this claim entirely.
7. Celebrity Endorsements as False Advertising Both Rob Gronkowski and Floyd Mayweather were named as defendants. The complaint alleged they promoted Snow products in ads that made unsubstantiated health and performance claims. One ad allegedly stated that Snow’s Wired Teeth Whitening Light was “patent-pending and approved by the Food and Drug Administration.”
How Did This Snow Teeth Whitening Lawsuit Case End?
In September/October 2022, U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack dismissed the case entirely.
The reason wasn’t that Snow’s advertising was found truthful. The judge didn’t rule on the merits of the advertising claims at all.
The case was thrown out because the plaintiff lacked standing. At his deposition, Kraus admitted:
- He had only purchased the Snow product after his lawyers drafted the complaint and sent Snow a demand letter for a multi-million dollar settlement
- He had a decades-long friendship with one of his own lawyers
- He could not recall seeing — let alone relying on — any of the allegedly misleading advertisements he was suing over
- He even admitted he wasn’t sure he could identify Floyd Mayweather by sight
The judge reportedly called the decision to bring the lawsuit “troubling” and strongly implied the attorneys never had a genuine good-faith basis for filing it. Both Gronkowski and Mayweather were dismissed without any finding of personal liability.
Case #2: Poyer v. Snow Teeth Whitening (2022) — The Real Consumer Lawsuit
Filed: March 18, 2022
Court: Eastern District of New York
Case Number: 2:22-cv-01506
Lead Plaintiffs: Melissa Poyer, Kimberly Marino, Nicole Petker, Joanne Moynihan
Defendants: Snow Teeth Whitening LLC, Snow Cosmetics LLC, Foresold LLC, Joshua Elizetxe
Why This Case Was Different?
The Poyer plaintiffs were actual purchasers. Melissa Poyer, for example, bought a whitening device on May 20, 2021 from trysnow.com for $149. These weren’t lawyers staging a lawsuit — these were regular consumers who felt misled by Snow’s marketing and sought legal recourse.
The allegations largely mirrored the Kraus case: false advertising, misleading health claims, and deceptive marketing. But the credibility of the plaintiffs was significantly stronger.
How Did This Case End?
Court records show the case was terminated on August 21, 2024.
The specific terms of the termination were not publicly disclosed. Crucially:
- No public settlement fund was announced
- No claims portal was ever opened
- No notice mailing was sent to customers
- No per-person payout was distributed
This is a critical point, and it’s where a lot of websites mislead people.
Is There an Active Snow Teeth Whitening Lawsuit Settlement in 2026?
No. Absolutely not.
As of April 2026, there is no active nationwide class action settlement tied to either of the Snow Teeth Whitening lawsuits.
- The Kraus case was dismissed in 2022.
- The Poyer case was terminated in August 2024 with no public settlement.
If you’ve seen websites claiming you can “file a claim” or that a “settlement is pending” in 2026 — that information is false. There is no fund. There is no claims process. Any site telling you otherwise is either outdated or deliberately misleading you.
What Can You Actually Do If You Feel Misled?
Even without an active class action, you’re not completely without options.
1. File an FTC Complaint The Federal Trade Commission accepts free consumer complaints about false advertising at ftc.gov/complaint. Your complaint becomes part of their enforcement database and can contribute to future regulatory action.
2. Request a Refund Directly from Snow Snow’s official policy included a 60-day money-back guarantee. Some customers have reported difficulty getting responses, but filing a formal complaint with Snow’s customer service is worth attempting first.
3. Initiate a Credit Card Chargeback If you purchased recently and feel the product was materially misrepresented, contact your credit card issuer. Chargebacks are often the fastest route to a refund for consumer product disputes.
4. File a State Attorney General Complaint Your state’s Attorney General office handles consumer protection complaints. This is especially useful if you believe a company’s advertising practices cross the line into deceptive trade practices under your state’s laws.
5. Consult a Consumer Protection Attorney If your damages were significant, a free consultation with a consumer protection attorney can help you understand whether an individual or small claims court claim makes sense.
Real Customer Complaints: What Are People Saying?
Beyond the lawsuits, Snow has accumulated a notable volume of consumer complaints through the Better Business Bureau and other review platforms. Common themes include:
- Sensitivity and peeling: Some customers reported gum irritation and mouth sensitivity severe enough to require medical attention
- Refund delays: Multiple customers reported difficulty getting responses after requesting refunds within Snow’s stated 60-day window
- Shipping issues: Orders going weeks without movement, with limited customer service responsiveness
- No visible results: Customers who followed the instructions carefully and saw no meaningful whitening
One BBB complaint from early 2025 described a customer who filled out an “adverse event form” at Snow’s request after experiencing sensitivity and peeling — and then received no follow-up response for weeks despite being promised contact within 48 hours.
These aren’t legal claims. But they paint a picture of a company that grew very fast and has struggled with customer service at scale.
Was Snow’s Advertising Actually Misleading? The Honest Assessment
Here’s a fair, balanced take — because the lawsuits ending in dismissal doesn’t mean everything Snow advertised was accurate.
What the courts didn’t say: Neither dismissal was a ruling that Snow’s advertising was truthful. The Kraus case was thrown out because of the plaintiff’s standing, not because the judge examined the ads and found them honest.
What science generally says about LED whitening: LED light technology in at-home whitening kits is controversial in the dental community. Some studies suggest the light itself contributes minimally to the whitening process compared to the peroxide in the serum. The real whitening agent is the hydrogen or carbamide peroxide — not the LED. This aligns with the laboratory findings cited in the Kraus complaint, even if those findings never received a formal court ruling.
What the FDA says: Cosmetic teeth whitening products are not FDA-approved. Any packaging featuring the FDA logo or language implying FDA endorsement on a cosmetic whitening product is misleading, regardless of what happened in court.
What “no sensitivity” claims mean in practice: Tooth sensitivity is one of the most commonly reported side effects of any peroxide-based whitening system. A brand that simultaneously claims no sensitivity and sells a desensitizing add-on is sending conflicting messages at minimum.
The Celebrity Angle: Gronkowski and Mayweather
The involvement of Rob Gronkowski and Floyd Mayweather made the Kraus lawsuit a media story. Both were named for their promotional ads that allegedly made false product claims, including the FDA approval language.
Both celebrities were dismissed from the Snow Teeth Whitening Lawsuit without any liability findings. No court determined they acted wrongfully.
That said, the case highlighted how celebrity endorsement agreements can expose athletes and entertainers to legal risk if the brand’s advertising makes claims the product can’t back up. It’s a cautionary tale for the influencer marketing world, not just for Snow.
Timeline Summary: Snow Teeth Whitening Lawsuit at a Glance
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| November 2019 | Joshua Elizetxe appears on Home Shopping Network making product claims |
| December 14, 2020 | Kraus v. Snow filed in E.D.N.Y; Gronkowski and Mayweather named |
| March 18, 2022 | Poyer v. Snow filed in E.D.N.Y by four actual purchasers |
| September/October 2022 | Kraus case dismissed — plaintiff lacked standing |
| August 21, 2024 | Poyer case terminated — no public settlement announced |
| 2026 | No active class action; no settlement fund exists |
Bottom Line: What You Need to Know about Snow Teeth Whitening Lawsuit
- There were two lawsuits, not one for Snow Teeth Whitening Lawsuit. Most articles get this wrong.
- Both cases have ended — one dismissed in 2022, one terminated in 2024.
- No settlement exists. Don’t fall for sites claiming otherwise.
- The courts never ruled on whether Snow’s advertising was actually misleading — the cases ended on procedural grounds, not on the merits.
- If you were harmed, you still have options: FTC complaints, chargebacks, and direct refund requests.
- Snow’s products are not FDA-approved — no cosmetic whitening product is. Be cautious of any brand that implies otherwise.
At-home teeth whitening can work for many people. But it works best when you go in with realistic expectations, understand that LED technology’s contribution is debated, and know your consumer rights if the product doesn’t deliver.
This case is similar to other supplement-related lawsuits like the Isotonix case, where safety and misleading claims were questioned.
This article on Snow Teeth Whitening Lawsuit is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe you have a legal claim, consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.
